Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification — Text and Context

(0 User reviews) 306

In Category - Mechanical Engineering

Authors: Phillips, Theodore Clifford, Schneider, Edward John Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2019 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: Sewage -- Purification Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 9,617

Reading time 42 min

Text sections 11

The catalog record for Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification — Text and Context provides practical reading context through 9,617 words, 42 min estimated reading time, and 11 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 21.3 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Sewage -- Purification,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #59980

A 1900 engineering thesis comparing six sewage purification methods—dilution, irrigation, intermittent downward filtration, chemical precipitation, septic tank, and contact bed—through the lens of purification, capacity, applicability, and cost, with a focus on quantitative evidence and contemporary case studies.

Editorial Edition Score 4.6/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg59980

Read the Text

Produced by Richard Tonsing and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

COMPARISON OF METHODS OF SEWAGE PURIFICATION

BY THEODORE CLIFFORD PHILLIPS AND EDWARD JOHN SCHNEIDER

THESIS FOR DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN MUNICIPAL AND SANITARY ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY _Theodore Clifford Phillips and Edward John Schneider_ ENTITLED _Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification_ IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF _Bachelor of Science in Municipal and Sanitary Engineering_.

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF _Municipal and Sanitary Engineering_.

Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification Dilution Irrigation Intermittent Downward Filtration Chemical Precipitation Septic Tank Contact Bed Discussion Conclusion

_Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification._

The disposal of sewage is one of the most important problems that confront the municipal and sanitary engineer to-day.

The study of this subject dates back to 1844 when the Healths of Towns Commission of London made the report which first showed the real course of the rapid increase in the death rate of the larger cities. In this country practically nothing was done until 1872 when the Massachusetts Legislature instructed the State Board of Health to investigate and report on the subjects of sewerage, sewage disposal, and the pollution of streams, and to-day Massachusetts leads in the investigation of the best methods of sewage disposal.

Six different methods for the treatment of sewage are now in use. These methods are used separately or in combination, the choice depending upon local conditions and the amount of purification required:—

3— Intermittent Downward Filtration.

4— Chemical Precipitation.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate each method and make a comparison along the following lines:

Disposal of sewage by dilution is the most common method at the present time, and no doubt will continue to be for some time to come where the stream or body of water is not used for domestic purposes. Under certain conditions this affords a satisfactory solution of the problem. However, if the water into which the sewage is discharged is a source of water supply, two very important questions arise. They are: 1—How large must the dilution be? 2—How far must the polluted stream flow before the water way may be used with safety to public health?

In 1867 Dr. Letheby and others in England made the statement that if sewage is diluted at least twenty times its volume, it will not only be made inoffensive but be thoroughly destroyed after flowing a dozen miles or more.

The Rivers Pollution Commission of Great Britain in 1878 maintained that no river in England was long enough to allow of a complete disappearance of sewage matter discharged into it.

Mr. F. P. Stearns in an article on The Pollution and Self-Purification of Streams in the Massachusetts State Board of Health Report 1890 gives a table showing, “The calculated composition of sewage for different degrees of dilution in a running stream”. A comparison was made of the Blackstone and Merrimack rivers, and extended over three years. It was from this investigation that the Commissioner of the City of Chicago reported that the flow of the Chicago Drainage Canal should be four cubic feet per second per 1000 inhabitants.

The purification by dilution may be due to three things:

1— Oxidation of organic matter.

3— Destruction of the organic matter by small animals and plants.

The oxidation is a very slow process and depends mainly upon bacterial life and conditions favorable to it. Subsidence depends upon the difference in the specific gravity of the suspended matter, and the clarification is increased as the velocity is diminished.

In regard to the destruction of the organic matter by small animals and plants Dr. Sorby says, (_Journal Royal Microscopic Society, 1884 p. 988_.) “It appears to me that the removal of impurities from rivers is more of a biolytic than a chemical question, and it is most important to consider the action of minute animals and plants, which may be looked upon as being indirectly most powerful agents.”

Although the method of broad irrigation has been carried on successfully in several of the largest cities of the old world, it has not been used to any great extent in the United States, except at a few state institutions in the east, and in the arid districts of the west.

Several years ago this method of disposal was given much attention as it was thought the sewage if used would yield large profits, but more recent information shows conclusively that such is not the case.

Continue Reading →

The thesis opens by framing sewage disposal as a pressing municipal problem, tracing its study back to London’s 1844 Health of Towns Commission and noting that Massachusetts led U.S. investigation from 1872. The authors, Theodore Clifford Phillips and Edward John Schneider, present their work as a Bachelor of Science thesis at the University of Illinois, June 1900. They immediately establish a comparative structure: six methods are to be evaluated along four lines—purification, capacity, applicability, and cost. The language is direct and technical, relying on reported data and case studies rather than theoretical exposition.

Evidence-Based Comparisons and Quantitative Claims

The authors ground their analysis in specific numerical claims. For chemical treatment, they state that “about 90 percent of the matter in suspension and a small percent of that in solution is removed,” yielding roughly “53 percent of the total organic matter” purified. Intermittent downward filtration is credited with “95 percent on the total organic matter,” and when combined with other methods, “the organic matter may be reduced 99 percent.” Septic tanks show “85 to 90 percent” efficiency on suspended organic matter, but “very little change takes place in the matter in solution.” These figures are presented without citation of original experiments, reflecting the thesis’s reliance on secondary sources and contemporary engineering reports.

Case Study: The Sutton, England Contact Beds

A detailed account of the Sutton sewage works (constructed 1891–93) illustrates the shift from chemical precipitation and irrigation to bacteria beds. The local board, unable to meet River Thames conservators’ requirements, adopted filters designed by W. J. Dibdin. Two beds of a quarter-acre total, with a capacity of 200,000 gallons, were built in 1895–96 for chemically treated sewage. By 1896, a bed treating crude sewage directly was constructed. The authors note that after two hours in the bed, the effluent was “uniformly superior” to that from local land treatment. They emphasize that the bacteria beds “abolish sludge” and allow purification “without chemicals at a small cost,” limited mainly to labor for filling and discharging.

Uncertainties and Awaited Data

The thesis candidly acknowledges gaps in evidence. For irrigation, the authors state, “No reliable data could be obtained giving the percent of purification.” They note that Berlin’s sewage is purified by this method and meets German law, but offer no numerical comparison. Regarding dilution, they reference E. P. Stearns’s 1890 table on ammonia, dissolved solids, and chlorine added to streams, but do not reproduce the data. The most striking example of uncertainty concerns Chicago’s diversion of sewage into the Illinois River: “Published reports have not been given out, but information from the most reliable sources seem to show that a considerable purification takes place.” This cautious phrasing underscores the thesis’s reliance on incomplete contemporary knowledge.

Readers should approach this thesis as a snapshot of sanitary engineering at the turn of the twentieth century, where quantitative claims often rest on limited local experiments and unpublished reports. The authors’ methodical comparison—structured around purification, capacity, applicability, and cost—provides a clear framework, but the evidence is uneven. The Sutton case study offers the most concrete detail, while other sections rely on general percentages or await future data. This document is valuable for understanding the state of the field in 1900, not as a definitive technical manual.

That afternoon the rain ticked against the glass while I pored over sewage tables—six methods, their costs and capacities, the quiet arithmetic of waste. Oddly, it wasn't the data that lingered but the lantern slides illustrating each works, those pale projections. Later, I found myself reaching for The magic lantern and its management — A Reader’s Guide, not for the machinery, but for how it teaches light to hold a room.